So Good I Had To Steal & Repost Here

from an email received today:

During the 3-1/2 years of World War 2 that started with the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941 and ended with the Surrender of Germany and Japan in 1945, the U.S. produced 22 aircraft carriers, 8 battleships, 48 cruisers, 349 destroyers, 420 destroyer escorts, 203 submarines, 34 million tons of merchant ships, 100,000 fighter aircraft, 98,000 bombers, 24,000 transport aircraft, 58,000 training aircraft, 93,000 tanks, 257,000 artillery pieces, 105,000 mortars, 3,000,000 machine guns, and 2,500,000 military trucks.

We put 16.1 million men in uniform in the various armed services, invaded Africa, invaded Sicily and Italy, won the battle for the Atlantic, planned and executed D-Day, marched across the Pacific and Europe, developed the atomic bomb and ultimately conquered Japan and Germany.

It's worth noting, that during the almost exact amount of time, the Obama administration couldn't build a functioning web site.

Exploiting Tragedy

With the anniversary of the Sandy Hook tragedy having just passed, there have been various commemorations.  And of course, there have been various other mentions that have been designed to exploit the tragedy in one way or another.  In a recent monologue on his local radio show, former Congressman Joe Walsh railed against the exploitation of the event by leftists, who wish to remind everyone of the event in order to compel them to support more gun control legislation.   He found it to be wholly inappropriate to do so and suggested that gun rights advocates would not only be lambasted by the left for exploiting Sandy Hook in the opposite manner, but would be equally wrong-headed for exploiting the situation regardless of leftist outrage, which is usually for show anyway.

I have to disagree with Walsh.  Exploiting events in order to promote legislation is not only appropriate, but is sound strategy for getting legislation supported and passed.  I mean, how else can it be done?  I don't believe it is possible.  Can anyone support any legislation without considering the consequences of not passing it?  What will happen if we don't?  What could happen if we do?  In these considerations, how can the discussion not call to mind such things?  More to the point, as regards a Sandy Hook tragedy, how can we not think of those kids and their teachers when debates regarding gun-control rage?

I say we cannot, and do not.  Why pass gun laws?  Proponents rightly (in their minds) wish to prevent another Sandy Hook, Columbine, Virginia Tech, etc.  Why else?  Just for grins?  As ridiculous a notion as it is that more laws prevent such things, they claim a firm belief that such laws lead to more safety.  Thus, to recall such tragedies makes sense.  The word "exploit" provokes a negative vibe, but exploitation of one consequence in order to garner support for that which is believed will prevent a recurrence is absolutely justified.  Walsh would remind us of Rahm Emanuel's infamous line, "Never let a crisis go to waste."  While Emanuel would not waste any opportunity to push bad policy, in reality he does what any politician would do.

Thus, we on the rational side of the gun debate see the events of the above listed tragedies as reasons for gun possession.  We exploit these situations, and should, to demonstrate the tragic consequences of an unarmed populace.  These incidents are manifestations of the downside for ignoring the intent of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.  We need to remind our fellow Americans that these possibilities exist more strongly wherever the law abiding are prohibited from possessing weapons for protection.

What's more, we have the advantage of having numerous examples of how these events could have been prevented.  John Barron refers to the latest example here.  Not long ago I linked to an Ann Coulter article that listed half a dozen more.  These, too, need to be exploited and exploited often.  The possibility of returned fire always has a profound deterrent effect on the intentions of any who would bring violence down upon the unsuspecting.

We need to remember these events so as to stimulate effective policies for the prevention of future events.  We need to remember the sorrow and horror to compel us to act in the most appropriate manner.  Joe Walsh is wrong to focus on the exploitation of a tragedy like Sandy Hook.  The real focus should be on the intention of the exploitation.  Exploiting Sandy Hook in order to pass more laws that make another Sandy Hook possible is what should have provoked Joe's outrage.  Exploiting Sandy Hook in order to eliminate such laws, thereby preventing more Sandy Hooks is a good thing.

Sweet "OR" Sour?

Ford is currently running a series of commercials for one of their new automobiles.  I don’t recall which one, but I believe it’s one of those newfangled hybrid cars.  They all revolve around this concept of “and” is better than “or”.  For example, they have a couple driving one of the cars discussing the car providing, I believe, power AND fuel economy.  One says to the other, “That’s better than power OR fuel economy.”  From that point, each version of the commercial imagines an example of “OR”, such as “sweet OR sour pork”, “bed OR breakfast”, “nuts OR bolts”, etc.  The conclusion is that “I like ‘AND’ better.”

In the book “Wyatt Earp: The Life Behind The Legend”, author Casey Tefertiller brings up this “choice” in relating the story of Earp after the murder of his brother Morgan. 

 

The book, which I stumbled upon whilst looking for something else at the local Barnes and Noble, paints Earp and his brothers as flawed, but generally noble men of honor, justice and character.  The author researched everything he could find regarding Earp, pouring over newspaper articles, interviews with people who knew him and court records from trials in order to determine what was and wasn’t true about the legend of this man. 

 

Overall, he seemed like a great guy and despite the fact that I’ve always found the Doc Holiday character far more entertaining and interesting in all the various films of that period, in reality I believe I would much prefer to have developed a friendship with Wyatt Earp.  In the early days of Hollywood, studios were keen on depicting “the Old West” and would invite people who lived those times to consult and act as extras.  Wyatt, who by this time was living in California, would visit sets to chat up some of the people he knew from those days as well as sometimes consult himself.  These men would sit around and reminisce about the old days and actors and crewmen would often listen in.  (Imagine that!)  Amongst those actors was a young John Wayne who was mightily impressed with Earp and the stories the others would tell about him.  He based almost all of his western characters on what he learned about Earp.  Wayne told Hugh O’Brien, who played Earp on TV, that he was playing Earp in each of those westerns he made, trying to capture and present the man’s highly regarded character, and that O'Brien, too, was capturing the essence of the man in his own depiction.

Most of the mining towns, Tombstone included, were wild but trying to grow into legitimate communities, with businessmen of all sorts hoping to find success.  They often were policed by various levels of law enforcement, each with their own jurisdictional duties, but often overlapping.  They also had issues with “cowboys”, a term not necessarily respected at the time, as they were not necessarily of the Roy Rogers quality.  The cowboys had their value as militia type persons who would gather to fight off Indian attacks, but were also mostly rustlers, robbers and all around troublemakers who made the towns’ business people both money and worried.  They made the towns too wild for new investors to risk their money. 

 

These towns also had newspapers and politics.  “Fair and balanced” was not common amongst the newspapers.  They swung one way or the other with some clearly being Republican papers and the others Democrat supporters.  At the time in Tombstone, the Democrat papers leaned toward the cowboys and the cattlemen who profited by their rustling.  Other businesses, such as saloons, casinos and whorehouses also tended to support the cowboys since they blew their pay in their establishments. 

The Republican leaning papers supported people like the Earps, who proved themselves regularly to be fair in their duties as lawmen and got the job done, far more often than not without the use of their guns. (Indeed, Earp wasn’t known for shooting people in order to be an effective lawman and was praised and greatly respected for this by many.)

Now here is where we got to the “And/Or” conundrum.  Due to the profit potential of having rustled cattle provided by the cowboys, it did not help to have any of these guys jailed instead of “working” (many cowboys were in the direct employ of some ranchers—but I was speaking of their less than legal means of income acquisition).  These people would use the letter of the law to keep these guys out of jail, and one pretty much had to be caught red-handed to be convicted.

On the other side, the businesses and people working for growth in the community were heavily invested in order.  To maintain a reputation as a wild and lawless town was not conducive to growth.  Wyatt Earp came to realize, particularly after the shooting of brother Virgil and the murder of brother Morgan, that justice was not easily had while law AND order were not absolutely tied together.  It was only after these crimes that Earp took the law into his own hands and began dispensing “frontier justice”, tracking down those he knew were responsible for the shootings, and making any further possibility of crime at the hands of the perpetrators a moot issue.  It became an issue of either law OR order.  Order was seen by Earp and others as paramount for not only growth of the community, but its safety as well.  Law would take a back seat.  For the cowboys and their supporters, it was reversed (assuming they cared about the law at all beyond how they could abuse it).

So Wyatt went about with his vendetta and found the justice, and vengeance, he sought.  The result was the bad guys acting far more covertly if they acted at all in a criminal manner. Justice AND order were had.

While reading of this story and the distance between law and order, I could not help but think of problems we face in the here and now.  We have our cowboys today.  They are called “gangbangers”, “bikers” and other forms of organized crime.  The worst of these groups, as well as many of the underlings, are known well to law enforcement groups of every level.  The law often works against the desire for justice and order.  People live in fear in their own homes and communities while the lawless move about without fear of prosecution unless they are caught with the smoking gun in their hands.  It makes me wish for a man like Earp, honorable and courageous, but fed up with the ramifications of laws that do more to protect the guilty rather than the innocent.  Some would object saying it isn’t how a Christian nation of laws should work.  Some would say we’d be using evil to fight evil.  Nonsense.  If the worst of the worst are done away with, fewer would have the courage to fill the void.  More people would be willing to do their parts as citizens to report crime and testify against criminals.  It would embolden the law-abiding and discourage the law-breakers.  Until then, we must live out a law OR order existence.

Agenda Lies 7: So What's The Story?

It's been awhile since my last post.  I've had numerous ideas (including one or two for the "Agenda Lies" series), but not the time or energy to do one and do it properly.  But this jumped out at me whilst reading something else and I had to post on it. 

John Barron had not long ago posted on an article describing an incident wherein restaurant patrons allegedly wrote a note on a receipt stating they were not leaving a tip because the waiter is "gay".  Apparently, there was another story involving a waitress who received a similar note in lieu of a gratuity.  However, the link above is a story from the perspective of the patrons, saying that the story is a hoax.  Their copy of the bill shows a tip, and it seems, they've presented a copy of their credit card bill which shows the amount indicated on their copy of that bill.

Now we are left to wonder which version of the story is true.  Considering how lies, distortion and demonizing are so integral to the furthering of the Agenda-That-Doesn't-Exist, I'd find it hard to wager my money against the patrons. 

What's more, if it is indeed a hoax, what about the story John reported?  Is that a hoax as well?  Is this, perhaps, a new tactic of the activists to draw even more sympathy for their immoral cause as if they don't have enough enablers corrupted in their behalf?  Or did the waitress hear of the first story and thought it would be a good idea to concoct a version of her own?  Anything is possible with those who say wrong is right.

You Can Have These Back Now.

Now this is interesting.

Of course, as the article suggests, this story could be BS.  Yet at the same time, it does bear monitoring as the suspicion regarding the whereabouts of Sadam Hussein's WMD arsenal upon our arrival in Iraq was never truly resolved.

I especially like the part questioning the brilliance of the "smartest man in the room" as regards this Syrian situation.  I'd say it goes equally for his entire foreign policy, even beyond the Middle East. 

Inspired By The Cornucopia

I read this brilliant article at the poorly written AmericanThinker.com, where lefties believe only one guy writes anything that appears there.  This article stands as the perfect response to a few posts at Geoffrey's constipated blog wherein he believes himself a true champion of the weaker sex by chastising anyone who questions the intelligence of women who make choices as if the world is not the dangerous place it constantly shows itself to be.  Such nonsense comes up, for example, in discussions about rape and how women can avoid it or greatly reduce the possibility of experiencing it.  Geoffrey chooses to pretend such compassionate people are "blaming the victim".

One story to which Geoffrey referred dealt with some kids from a football team taking advantage of a girl who had succumbed to the effects of alcohol and/or drugs.  When the question of what an underage girl was doing at a party where alcohol and/or drugs were present in the first place, that's when Geoffrey took off.

It is absolutely ludicrous for anyone to insist that a girl/woman can act or dress any way she wants, or go anywhere she wants and expect that she will always be treated as if she is a modest, Christian girl saving herself for marriage and therefor is untouchable.  While it would be great if our world was such that any girl/woman could walk freely into whatever shithole pub in whatever rundown part of town completely naked with a "Come hither" look and a tattoo saying, "Take me, I'm yours" and a simple "No" would put off whatever neanderthal becomes aroused, it's simply a fact that the world just doesn't work that way.  And Geoffrey's campaign to teach boys "Don't rape" won't change that, especially given the fact that I can't remember a time during my life when this wasn't taught (except perhaps in muslim households). 

In fact, if we could reverse the effects of liberalism as it applied to our culture, whereby traditional standards of virtue and character are taught and encouraged rather than mocked, there would still exist among us evil men of whom women should be wary.  To pretend that women do not have to take this fact into account when they go about their daily lives is the height of idiocy.  And even if the Geoffrey's of the world insist on pretending that the sight of attractive women dressed provocatively makes no difference to them, if they were the least bit honest, they'd have to admit that there exist men for whom such provokes in them erotic feelings.  They'd also have to admit that of those "unusual" men, some are complete assholes and because of that, women are at risk.  They must act and dress accordingly, whether it's fair or not.  "Fair" has nothing to do with it.  It's reality.  Ignore it at your own risk.

Reflections on the Zimmerman Case

Things would be different if Trayvon was white!!

Really?  I don't think so.  Note the similarities, particularly this from the prosecutor:

“I just hope it’s not a message to this community,” she sniffed, “that you have the right to shoot an unarmed 17-year-old kid for breaking into a car.”

What did Yogi Berra say?  Deja vu all over again.


If I had a black son, he'd look like...

This.  Oh, jeez!  Is this racist??!!  I don't care what color your son is.  What of the content of his character?  How does a parent let their kid get to a point where the kid suffers outcomes such as Trayvon Martin's?  I know my kids do not dress or behave in a manner anyone would call "suspicious".  That's because of how I sought to raise them.  Which leads me to...

Profiling is GOOD!

Way back when I was in high school, when dinosaurs roamed the earth, there was an event day at our school called "50's DAY".  Everyone was encouraged to dress like they did in the 1950's and the day culminated in a 50's Dance that night.  In a very uncharacteristic move for me and my chums, we all bought into this particular school spirit episode and dressed and acted the part all day long.

So there I was, Vitalis in my mop, T-shirt with a pack of Luckies twisted in the sleave and blue jeans with the cuffs pulled up (couldn't afford a leather jacket, damnit).  With mirror shades upon my face, and an unlit Lucky in my mouth, I strutted my way from class to class.  A shop teacher, who happened to also be a bishop of some Christian denomination, grabbed me, the ciggie and hauled me off to the office.  Upon my arrival, I immediately came into range of the school cop (with whom I had some contact in the past), the dean (ditto) and the principle.  Still in the clutches of the bishop, the cop said, "What do we have here?"  I said to him, "Yo, Ken!  What's the problem wit dis guy?" as I pointed to the bishop.  "You'd better watch yourself, young man!  Don't make things worse!"

It dawned on me right away that my get-up had the officer fooled.  I pulled off my shades and mussed my hair and said, "Wait a minute!  It's me!  ART!"  I could see that they then realized who I was and they began to laugh!  "OH!  It's 50's Day!"  "Yeah!"  I said.  "Just showing some school spirit, like you guys say I should!"

I was profiled.  I was dressed like a 50's greaser and they treated me like one.  Naturally I sued them and that's why I'm the rich man I am today.

No.  I just dealt with it and realized that how one dresses and acts gives off impressions we don't always intend, and more importantly, sometimes they do.

Profiling is the learned lessons of our experiences.  To ignore those lessons can needlessly put us in jeopardy.  It isn't judging a book by its cover.  It is recognizing that the book in question very much resembles the one with which we were hit, and greater scrutiny is in order to confirm the presence of danger or eliminate the need for concern.

But the reverse is a lesson well learned also.  If I wish to deflect attention, I dress to blend in, act in a manner that does not draw attention and basically, "be good".  Those whose duty it is to stand guard against bad behavior will look away from those who do not trigger their profiling sensors.

But while dress and behavior don't guarantee criminal activity is imminent, they do naturally activate those sensors some among us insist we should ignore.   And when we do ignore them , another terrorist bomb explodes, another mass shooting occurs, another rape, another robbery, another mugging...and some actual cases of well behaved, good students of character are scrutinized, detained, arrested and sometimes killed when mistaken for someone else.  Was Trayvon one of these?  The known facts don't suggest such, but for the sake of the incident on that dark, rainy night, his dress and manner played a major role in the final outcome.  Had his parents made an issue of how he dressed, behaved and carried himself, and had he accepted those teachings, none of this would have happend.  That bishop shop teacher didn't haul everyone to the office.

The Faces of True Idiocy

When I heard that Charlie Pierce wrote another piece on the Zimmerman case, I just knew that Geoffrey would be citing that drivel as if it was true insight, an accurate reflection of reality.  One idiot praising another. 

Just focus first on that excerpt from Pierce's piece of self-satisfying ooze around which Geoffrey frames his post.  Notice the fiction necessary to come to Pierce's conclusions.  Nothing in that puke resembles the reality that the facts of the case illuminate.  "Stalked"?  Pierce and Kruse-Safford enjoy calling the mere moments Zimmerman was out of his vehicle "stalking".  The entire period from when Martin left the convenience store to the time he was shot does not allow for anything an honest person could call "stalking".

There is nothing in the facts that suggest Zimmerman was doing more than looking out for his community.  Some may recall a rather infamous incident in New York a few decades ago, wherein a woman was attacked in the night, her screams heard by many, but her demise guaranteed by their inaction.  Idiots like GKS and Pierce would chastise those people.  But here, one man takes it upon himself to do a bit more than whine about crime in his neighborhood and he is to be crucified by lesser individuals like Pierce and lil' Geoffie because the situation resulted in death.  And these pathetic idiots would suggest that not only was Zimmerman pleased with the opportunity to have shot and killed someone, but now would take his RIGHTEOUS trial verdict as license to kill more people.

The absolute arrogance and hideous self-righteousness of Pierce and GKS to ASSUME racist intentions on the part of Zimmerman is disgusting and serves nothing but to satisfy their own unjustifiably massive egos and twisted sense of morality. 

If Zimmerman is guilty of anything in this incident (based on all the facts that have been available for some time now), it is of being less than perfect in his handling of the situation in which he found himself.  Martin, however, is guilty of having brought about his own death.  We know, for example, that he had a cell phone, as he used it to talk to the prosecution's "star" witness.  If he felt at all threatened by Zimmerman's scrutinizing of his behavior, a call to the cops would have been the proper move.  The cops would have had two people calling them about the same thing.  Instead of a fatal bullet wound, there likely could have been laughs all around.  "No way!  I called the cops on YOU, dude!"  Instead, he chose to play the role evidence shows was the reputation he was creating for himself.  It got him killed. 

The Pierces, Geoffreys, Al Sharptons, Van Joneses and others like these race-baiting, morally bankrupt idiots will continue to stoke the very sentiments against which they claim to fight.  They each do it for self-serving reasons, not caring the least for the people who actually are affected by real causes of their sufferings.  They sicken me.  That they don't sicken themselves says a ton about each of them.  May God have mercy on them all.

Taxes And Subsidies: A Guest Post by Bubba

MA's note:  I have always found Bubba's comments to be so good as to leave me wondering why he does not have his own blog.  For whatever reasons prohibit his decision to do so, I have agreed to allow him the opportunity to post here when he is so compelled.  Copying and pasting from his email wasn't allowing his links to work, so I simply typed out everything (adding one link as indicated in paragraph two) as if I was posting myself.  What follows is from Bubba:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In a recent conversation about another subject entirely, Dan Trabue mentioned the question of what qualifies as a "fair" or "right" level of taxation.

It appears he was referencing a long dormant conversation elsewhere, and I've asked Marshall to let me provide a guest post here to continue the conversation.  (MA's note:  Dan may have been referencing this more recent conversation, on the same subject.)

Dan wrote, "I do not believe there is such a thing as a morally and rationally 'right' tax rate, at least at the upper end.  I think obviously, it would be wrong to tax people so much that they can't afford to live so, for instance, at the lower end of the pay scale, a family with very meager income - say $10,000 - probably should not be taxed much or any because all their income is simply being used to survive.

"But a 'right' tax rate for a person making $400,000/year? $1 million?  I do not believe there exists a 'right' rate, God has not told us and logic does not dictate to us one right rate, so I can't give what doesn't exist."

The only clear line that Dan draws is at taxing people "so much that they can't afford to live", but I wonder, would it be okay to tax even that remaining amount, if the government provides a subsidy that covers living expenses?

Suppose that the minimum cost of living in a given area is $50,000 for a family of four -- two adults, two children -- an amount that's just above what's listed for the Bronx, at a "living wage calculator" maintained by an urban planning professor at MIT.

Dan writes that it would be wrong to tax a Bronx family of four so much that they would end up with less than $50,000 a year, but what if the government provided that amount as a subsidy?

To Dan and those who would agree with him, I ask, would you have any moral objections if the government taxed all four-member families in the Bronx at 100 PERCENT if the government turned around and subsidized all these families with a guaranteed income of $50,000 a year?

What could those moral objections possibly be?

Got to Fight It!

Saw "The Heat" over the weekend with Sandra Bullock and Melissa McCarthy.  Liked it.  Plenty of laughs if crude humor doesn't bother you.  But it opened with the Isley Bros, and that was cool.

Cornucopia's Treasures of Irony

It was not my intention to do a post based on that treasure trove known as Geoffrey's blog, but I was wasting time on the computer and thought I'd take a look there, not having done so in a while.

Now, it isn't really possible to visit his blog and not find something goofy.  It's almost like it's his purpose in life to provide fodder.  But this post has a special charm.  The great joy is in the title alone and the lone comment posted by one for whom the luster of Geoffrey's intellect is now diminished.

While we're at it, you'll also find the usual nonsensical understanding of right-wing sentiment regarding abortion.  First, that we have any confusion regarding what the laws say about it, and secondly, that it is our side that is confused about what abortion is and what a fetus is.  We have no problems understanding the moral bankruptcy of people like Geoffrey who try to pretend there is some line that separates the unborn from the rest of humanity.  The only real confusion on the right is whether positions like Geoffrey's should be cause for laughter or abject sorrow.

The Cornucopia Delivers

I haven't been over to Geoffrey's blog lately, thereby reducing his readership by almost half, but that doesn't necessarily deprive us of good stuff. 

It all began with a post at Dan Trabue's blog wherein he charges Stan with "whining" in a post at his blog.  The extreme irony of Dan accusing Stan of "whining" in regards to the issue of which he speaks is so obviously lost on Dan, that I plan to point it out for him in a later post.  But for now, suffice to say it is where Geoffrey makes his own special delivery of his usual good stuff.

And it comes within this paragraph from one of his last comments on the thread (which is within the last dozen or so comments of the thread for anyone who cares to read it firsthand).  I emboldened the "good stuff" in question:

"That legalizing same-sex marriage makes it binding upon everyone? Last time I checked the country was chock-full of people, some of them working at the Heritage Foundation, who think that people of other races are inherently inferior in some way. That doesn't mean the Civil Rights and Voting Rights laws aren't still in force. Passing a law, even nearly fifty years ago, hasn't changes at least some minds. I'm quite sure there will be folks like you who refuse to admit that a married gay couple is really married."

Naturally, I questioned him on this wacky assertion:

" Really." says I.  "When did your last check occur, and who at the Heritage Foundation did you find that held people of other races as inherently inferior in some way?"

So then Geoffie provides this link to the Daily Beast with the laughable suggestion that it is not a liberal source.

Now, it's bad enough that he tries to trash Heritage by citing this article and the article's many weak links to weaker validations of their charges (Heritage's assessment of the economic impact of the current "comprehensive immigration reform" proposal is the only one available at this time as far as I can tell), but he's really keen on the accusations leveled at one of the authors of the analysis, one Jason Richwine.  It seems that the Washington Post "revealed" the "racist ideology" of Richwine by referring to a thesis of his while at Harvard.  This would be humorous if it wasn't so downright deceitful.  But as I told Geoff,  reporting a charge of racism does not equate to actually finding racism.  To that, Geoffie responded in this way:

"If you took some time to read, you'd notice that (a) the whole thesis is racist (Hispanics are stupid because they're Hispanics); and (b) it was so blatant the Heritage Foundation fired the guy.

So, obviously, I'm just repeating a charge of racism rather than actually finding out what's going on, unlike you who can't even be bothered to Google the story in the first place."

Note point (a).  As I've begun reading the thesis, I have yet to find anything that suggests Richwine is arguing that Hispanics are stupid because they're Hispanic.  Only about 30-40 pages into it, I've found that Richwine makes specific comments that indicate no racism is behind his work.  He states categorically that regardless of how one group compares to another, every individual should always be treated as an individual.  He even presents an example of an early study on IQ that was racially motivated to both illustrate the distinction, as well as to expose the flaws of methodology.  So Geoffie is lying here.  Then he lies again with point (b).  Heritage accepted Richwine's resignation because of the liberal whining about racism, not because his thesis was indeed "blatantly" racist.

Michelle Malkin writes about the situation here, and shows much better journalistic integrity in doing so.  She presents the three Harvard big shots who signed off on Richwine's thesis:

"Richwine’s dissertation committee at Harvard included George Borjas, Robert W. Scrivner Professor of Economics and Social Policy. The Cuban-born scholar received his PhD in economics from Columbia. He is an award-winning labor economist, National Bureau of Economic Research research associate, and author of countless books, including a widely used labor economics textbook now in its sixth edition.

Richard J. Zeckhauser, the Frank P. Ramsey Professor of Political Economy at JFK, also signed off on Richwine’s dissertation. Zeckhauser earned a PhD in economics from Harvard. He belongs to the Econometric Society, the American Academy of Sciences, and the Institute of Medicine (National Academy of Sciences).

The final member of the committee that approved Richwine’s “racist” thesis is Christopher Jencks, the Malcolm Wiener Professor of Social Policy at Harvard’s JFK School. He is a renowned left-wing academic who has taught at Harvard, Northwestern, the University of Chicago, and the University of California, Santa Barbara. He edited the liberal New Republic magazine in the 1960s and has written several scholarly books tackling poverty, economic inequality, affirmative action, welfare reform, and yes, racial differences (The Black White Test Score Gap)."

All in all, what Geoffrey and the leftist whiners lambasting Heritage and Richwine are doing is typical of their ilk.  Simply because one dares to compare races or ethnic groups, by golly, racism is afoot!  This is weak sauce and childishness.  It is also extreme cowardice to cower from the prospect of making such comparisons as if no true benefit can be possible.  

So imagine for a moment that some liberal hero decides to prove that there are no differences between the races or ethnic groups.  He wants to show up the Richwines of the world and intently reviews all Richwine did, runs tests, researches minutia and goes well beyond Richwine, hitting the subject from every possible angle.  Imagine he comes up with exactly the same results as Richwine.  Does that make the liberal hero a racist villain?  Should he lose his job and/or standing in the public square?  Should he resign?

Here's the thing:  how can anyone get upset to find that when comparing races or ethnic groups they might not score equally?  Where's the problem here?  Does it seem impossible that the most intelligent and wisest might be from the group that scored the worst?  I don't see how it's possible that all groups could be absolutely equal in abilities.  One group might have the strongest, another the smartest, another the fastest.  It's what we do with this information that matters.  In the case of Richwine, he proposed merely that we consider IQ in immigration policy.  He gives reasons why that might be beneficial.  And while his work suggests that Hispanics demonstrate the least potential for assimilation, I haven't found any suggestion that no Hispanics can assimilate and be a welcome addition to our population.

So many insist that our immigration situation is in dire need of improvement.  Richwine has one possible way to do that.  And whether or not one agrees with his findings, one needs to be able to refute them before dismissing them out of hand.  If the findings are accurate, then they deserve consideration in any discussion of immigration reform.  It isn't racist no matter how people like Geoffrey and some politicians want it to be.

Two New Right Ones

Just a note to announce the addition of two blogs to my Right Ones blog roll.  The Watchman's Bagpipes is Glenn's blog, and Timothy J. Hammons posts at Neil's and other places as "Pastor Timothy".  I've been meaning to add them for some time, and I apologize to them both for my procrastination.  Both are worthy additions indeed.  Check 'em out.

But Hey! What Do We Know?

According to a new Pentagon report, sexual assaults within the military have gone up.  This AP report, posted on ABCnews.go.com, gives some numbers:

"The report says that of the 1.4 million active duty personnel, 6.1 percent of active duty women — or 12,100 — say they experienced unwanted sexual contact in 2012, a sharp increase over the 8,600 who said that in 2010. For men, the number increased from 10,700 to 13,900. A majority of the offenders were military members or Defense Department civilians or contractors, the report said."

Gosh.  Who could possibly have predicted something like this ever happening?  I mean, these are professional soldiers who only think about doing their jobs.  They could easily maintain discipline whilst working closely with members of the opposite sex, right?  Who could possibly have foreseen this?

I don't know.  Maybe rational and reasonable people who deal in the real world without regard to nonsensical political correctness and the fools who champion it.  It was totally obvious to them that such a consequence was more than mere potential.  It was bound to happen.

And what of those men who experienced unwanted sexual contact?  Who was applying the pressure?  I wonder.  (No I don't)  I'm sure it was all women officers abusing their authority.  (No I'm not)  No way could lesbian officers have done so to subordinate women, or homosexual men toward men.

Yeah.  Let's just mix all these people together, men, women, homosexuals, lesbians.  What could go wrong?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Two reports released this week show gun homicides in the U.S. are down since the 1990s.  One is a study released Tuesday by the government's Bureau of Justice Statistics.  It showed gun-related homicides dropped from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in2011.  A reduction of 39%.

Another report by the Pew Research Center found a similar decline.  It found that the number of homicides per 100,000 people fell from 7 in '93 to 3.6 in 2010.  A 49% decline.

Even non-fatal crimes involving guns shrank by about 70% over that period.  But the Pew group polled people in March and found that 56% thought that the number of gun crimes is higher than 20 years ago and only 12% thought the opposite.

Just think about all those blood-thirsty gun owners out there.  Aren't they trying hard enough?  One would think with the increase in gun purchases recently that we'd see an increase in such numbers.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Both of the above stories seem to indicate that the leftists don't know what the hell they're talking about.  If they did, we'd not see increases in sexual assaults in the military.  If they did, we'd not see a decrease in gun crimes while gun ownership increases.  These realities will be ignored by them.

Agenda Lies 6: Danny's Story

I have such limited time these days.  So much is happening in the world, but deciding on topics for the blog is difficult when only so much time is available.  It's far easier to visit other blogs and comment as the mood strikes me.  Lately I've been visiting Dan Trabue's blog to engage in a discussion regarding the harm caused by the legalization of same-sex marriage (SSM).  At least that's what I thought the topic was.  Hard to tell, because when one provided another example of the harm, Dan had taken to deleting it if it did not meet his undefined criteria for what constitutes harm.  So not only was that hard to understand, but by his actions, we are also more confused on the issue of grace in discourse, a tone Dan so often demands.

A little background:  Dan Trabue supports SSM.  He has a very twisted understanding of Scripture upon which he bases his opinion.  In his contorted world, God is pleased by two committed, loving and monogamous homosexuals, just as He is pleased with a man and woman committed to each other in marriage.  Despite several years of trying, I have yet to get Dan to fill the many gaping holes that perforate his position.  In the above mentioned blog thread, I had again offered a link that provided a list of about half a dozen pro-homosexual Biblical scholars that also contradict Dan's position.  But Dan holds fast to his heresy.  He loves his heresy.  Thus, it's no surprise that he supports changes to our laws that would result in SSM being treated as equal to normal, REAL marriage.

So, he posts his thoughts on the current situation regarding this debate.  His point revolves around his belief that we who defend marriage as an institution based on the union of one man and one woman are in fact losing the debate, and that we are flummoxed as to why.

He says that we "are now on the losing side of history".  Who came up with that idiocy?  "Wrong side of history".  "Losing side of history".  It's inane.  I know what is meant by it's use, but it's really meaningless.  How can anyone determine the right side of history, or the winning side?  Especially as history is still unfolding.

But I digress.

Dan's first mistake (for the purpose of this post) is to define winning or losing as "when one side makes the case in a way that appeals to those listening as the most rational and/or moral argument."  The mistake is in asserting that his side has even established a rational and/or moral argument.  They just take it for granted.

He then goes on to explain our problem:

" For many out there, the reasons they lost are clear (in their mind) and include...

1. The devil always wins out in the short term
2. Pro-marriage-equity types have "controlled the language"
3. Pro-marriage-equity types have taken over the media
4. Pro-marriage-equity types have subverted our public schools
5. Our side is willing to do anything to win, including lie, cheat and twist facts

and, the ever popular...

6. The public is too dam dumb!"

This constitutes the most honest bit I've ever heard from a pro-homosexual proponent.  Each of those points is rather accurate, even if the order is not.  (#1 is not a driving reason that anyone puts forth, demonic influence being a bit too tricky to support)

Points 2-5 are absolutely accurate.  Take #2.  The very term "pro-marriage-equity" was composed to tap the emotions of those to which Dan refers in #6.  There is no "inequity" now and never was since interracial marriage was no longer prohibited.  That's because homosexuals don't qualify for recognition by the state (nor by God) because they are two of the same sex.  Marriage requires one of each gender.  Always has.  It's never been different.  It is what marriage is.  Now, the activists and their enablers regard marriage in a manner that has not been historically accurate.  To them, it is only a union of two people who love each other.  But legally, the feelings of the two being married were not of consequence in order to gain legal recognition and/or license. 

And as the media and public school system are heavily influenced by (if not totally controlled by) leftists, often of the hard-core variety, they have indeed influenced an entire generation into regarding homosexual behavior as morally benign or no worse than equal to heterosexual behavior within a marriage.

Then, I'd be remiss if I didn't recognize the absolute FACT that is point #5.  A close look reveals that even those few arguments from the activist/enabler that sound like truth is itself based on lies, distortions & falsehoods.  Take a look at the polling to which they rely to support their claim of shifting cultural sentiments.  Our youth has been inundated by pro-homo propaganda for the last 40 years or more.  To say that our young polls high in support for SSM is really just a self-fulfilled prophesy.  Train the kids to believe what you say and then ask them what they believe.  "See?  Even the kids know!"

The real issue here is not that we've lost the debate.  That's not possible.  All the truth and facts are on our side of the issue.  We hold the moral high ground because we understand the clear truth regarding what constitutes moral behavior in the area of human sexuality.

Even more importantly, their side has never debated the issue at all.  Despite what Dan falsely claims is true about how we debate, his side has jumped to demonize all who disagree with the Agenda That Doesn't Exist.  They don't deal with the issues presented to answer the question of harm at all.  Indeed, our side has been very adamant in listing the many ways tolerating homosexual behavior is harmful to the culture, as well as to those involved in the lifestyle.

And we've hit the issue from every imaginable angle.  No one can hope to go toe to toe with Robert Gagnon from the Biblical perspective.  They just dismiss him.  No one can tangle with people like Jennifer Rorbach Morse on the cultural side.  And considering how many of our laws, policies and customs are based upon the traditional understanding of marriage, it will be a legal nightmare.

But the Dans of the world will continue to ignore the fact and logic based arguments defending real marriage.  No argument will be good enough as a result.  It's not that the anti-SSM arguments fail.  It's that Dan fails to give them the respect they deserve.  Doing so would make his position untenable (as if it isn't already).

As one progresses through the over 130 comments that followed the post (not counting those of mine and Craig's that Dan ungraciously deleted---he claims they didn't answer the question, when he should have left them for others to decide if they did or not), one will see that Dan doesn't really explain what he was seeking.  His question morphs throughout.  He speaks of the debate in the post and then finishes with the question he thinks we haven't answered "what's the harm?"  What does that mean to you in light of the context?  I was pretty damned sure he was referring to the debate about legalizing this immoral idea of SSM.  So when I responded with a few examples of the harm legalization would present, he altered the question to simply, "What if two rational, healthy adults love each other and want to marry - committing to faithfully love, support and respect each other - and they're causing no one any harm, what possible reason would there be for stopping that marriage?"

Well, obviously I wouldn't be looking to stop two rational, healthy adults if they were comprised of one man and one woman.  And I certainly wouldn't waste my time trying to stop two of the same gender who wished to commit to each other.  But the question assumes that two of the same gender who wish to marry each other are both rational and healthy.  The fact that two of the same gender wish to marry each other does not imply "rational" at all.  It suggests something quite unhealthy psychologically.

Nonetheless, there's a big difference in the question if it isn't connected to the debate he claims we're losing.  Aside from the harm they do to themselves, both physically and, most importantly, spiritually, I don't care if homosexuals or lesbians wish to play house.  I'm concerned with the problems legalizing it will inflict upon our culture, our children and our economy.

So here's a question:  Where's the harm in NOT legalizing SSM?  There is none.  There would only be an incredibly tiny percentage of the general population that would be put out. (Only a small percentage of homosexuals have gotten married in states and countries that legalized this selfish demand.)

From the Cornucopia: A Lesson To Learn

As Geoffrey can tell you, I'm one of his biggest fans.  That might mostly be by default because it's quite possible he has fewer readers than I.  But his is one of the blogs I visit regularly for a host of reasons.  OK.  A "host of reasons" might be an overstatement, but certainly curiosity is one of them.

I get a lot of heat when I visit Geoffrey's blog.  He likes to say that I visit just to argue and he's not about to argue with me, that he doesn't need to explain himself and that I don't understand anything he writes anyway and on and on and on.  He also likes to say my comments are like a flaming bag of poop some kid leaves on someone's porch.  Ironically, I am often accused of being the hateful one by people like the intrepid Parklife.

But recently, Geoffrey has posts on the subject of "God is love".  This one in particular I initially found quite hypocritical.  It doesn't jibe with his overall attitude when one considers his posts about members of the right-wing or his responses to my comments.  He's really a nasty-assed kinda guy.

But that's what really got me.  Those posts of his against the nasty he feels justified in putting out on the world wide web.  And I got to thinking about the manner in which I often deal with particular visitors to this, my own blog.

Now, I could defend myself, and I think quite well, in that I give back only what's been given.  I don't, for example, just jump down Parkie's throat except that he has proven incapable of posting a thoughtful comment of substance that provides something that could compel true reflection or consideration.  And Feodor also enjoys tainting every comment of his with condescension and derision and thus, I often leave a little for him as well, especially when his crap is directed to other visitors.

And while I can also defend myself by repeating that I don't pretend to be one of Christ's twelve, I am more than a little concerned after re-reading Geoffrey's post and realizing that I might be as hypocritical as he is.  Sure, he's better at it than me, but degrees of asshat don't enter into it.

I often feel that some people exist as a test.  God puts them in our lives so as to see if we really live His second greatest commandment.  We all have these people in our lives and usually in far greater numbers than we feel is fair.  It really is how we treat those who treat us poorly that matters.  And some of these people can be examples to us of how we should NOT treat those we don't like.  For this I owe Geoffrey thanks for the lesson learned.  May I be granted the strength to put it into practice.

Even More Goofiness--Cars More Regulated Than Guns?

The goofiness to which I referred was the last comment Parkie posted to the previous discussion.  This fool often makes cracks accusing me of never researching anything.  While that is an idiotic claim considering the many links in both my posts and comments, here and elsewhere, it is clear that he did no research before parroting the goofy claim that cars are more regulated than guns.  In response, I offer this insightful article.  Maybe regulating guns the same way we do cars is not such a bad idea after all.  Thanks Parkie!

Lessons From Gun Goofiness

Since the Sandy Hook massacre, there have been hordes of discussions revolving around how we prevent a recurrence of the tragedy.  This post will attempt to list and/or highlight some of what the debate has exposed.  I want to begin with this link to a blog by a guy named Larry Correia, who is likely one of the best sources for informed opinion on the subject.  His background with firearms, training with them, the laws surrounding them and the facts regarding the use and possession is pretty extensive, particularly from an experiential perspective.  The piece addresses the most common arguments of the knee -jerk gun-control advocates and is such that the time to read it should be taken before daring to dismiss him.

There will be no particular order in presenting the arguments, except that the pro-2nd Amendment proponents are the most sensible and fact-based.  By this I mean that nothing presented by the gun-control people have diminished the need for the 2nd, provide a legitimate argument for its repeal or show an understanding of what it is all about.  To that end, I had listed several quotes from founders and others that show the intention of the 2nd and of those, the following is especially illustrative of what is at the heart of the gun-control side:

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes."-- Cesare Beccaria, as quoted by Thomas Jefferson's Commonplace book

Before proceeding, it is unfortunately necessary to head off the very likely complaint by gun-controllers that this does not imply anything "trifling" about a mass shooting of the scope of Sandy Hook.  Laws that seek to inconvenience the law-abiding in an effort to prevent abuses of a freedom or right is the point of the quote.  This is what the anti-gun folk seek to do and is the major flaw of their proposals.  Such proposals do not work as only the law-abiding abide laws.  While doing so, they are made to be victims to those who will never abide the law for whatever reason.  So, the above quote expresses the futility of gun laws due to that which provoked them...tragedies perpetrated by those who abuse the right to own guns...and compares them to the outlawing of fire or water for the dangers they present to careless or thoughtless individuals.

The gun-control people have demonstrated their desperation in their arguments.  They have misstated the intentions of the defenders of the 2nd Amendment through a host of ridiculous and unAmerican/unChristian accusations and judgements.  Among the worst are those who proclaim that 2nd Amendment defenders (henceforth to be known as "our side" or "the good guys") do not care about dead children.  To them (henceforth to be known as "them", "the bad guys" or "idiots"), there is no way to both protect a right recognized by the US Constitution and protect the lives of innocent children and/or citizens.  One person in particular, whose initials are "Geoffrey Kruse-Safford", insists this is the case despite citing numerous stories where armed civilians prevented high body counts where such was intended.  What's more, rather than display a blood lust Geoffrey is certain exists in the good guys, at least a couple of these stories included citizens who never fired their weapon for the sake of bystanders.  The perpetrator either surrendered or offed himself simply because he was confronted by someone willing to shoot back.

Geoffrey believes that our side is willing to allow the murder of more children rather than sacrifice "reasonable" restrictions.  But this is dishonesty and not the least bit representative of our position.  Our position is that what is termed "reasonable" by them is not reasonable at all, nor proven so by any stat or study presented by them.  Indeed, the quality of the stat or study is of no concern to them if it can be used in any way to demonize our side.  What's important is to exploit tragedies in order to characterize our side in the worst possible light.  Geoffrey claims we used Sandy Hook to scream about rights being denied when the truth is that they are using the situation to scream that they should be.

And of course, Geoffrey wouldn't be Geoffrey without some low class assumption that one's desire to own weapons is to compensate for the size of one's sexual organ.  That somehow the driving force of gun-ownership is to "feel like a man".  While no doubt there exist people like that, it too is no reason to deny those who desire weapons for legitimate reasons.

Geoffrey and others have tried to dismiss the argument that the 2nd was created to defend the right to life, liberty and property, and that it was meant as a deterrent to the tyrannical intentions of a corrupted government.  It seems that since no apparent moves to that goal have thus far manifested in modern times, that the threat is no longer possible.  The shortsightedness of this position is alarming while typical and such mindless people are willing victims of despots.  There need not be the imminent threat of oppression for the argument to be legitimate still.  But as we have still fresh in our memory the attack of 9/11/01, only idiots would dare say, "It can't happen here."  The more like Geoffrey who live amongst us, the more likely it will someday.

Another aspect of that argument that the bad guys try to foist is that it would be impossible to resist the might of the US military should such a sorry state of affairs come to pass.  "Let's see you shoot down drones and attack helicopters with pistols and shotguns..." they say.  But there are two things wrong with this:  First, your idiotic gun-control laws have left us with only pistols and shotguns, and secondly, the Afghans have been rather successful fending off a far better equipped force for a long time.

I could go on and on about the extremely poor level of thought that is behind the gun-control positions.  Like most leftist arguments, they are emotion based and not fact based.  Sure, they use facts, or that which they perceive as facts, but actual facts do not support their desires to limit the access of law-abiding people to the defensive weapon of their choice.  That's because their position is not focused on the actual problem.  The problem is not guns or their availability.  The problem is those who use them for evil purposes.  Guns are but one tool of such people to perpetrate their acts of evil.  One doesn't need a gun to commit mass murder.  Ask Mohamed Atta. Ask Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. Ask Andrew Kehoe.  Those that intend to commit atrocities will find a way.

A rational attempt to curb criminal activity, including mass murder, must not infringe upon the ability of the law-abiding to protect themselves as they see fit.  Nor should it infringe upon their ability to do anything that does not manifest in the abuse of their liberty and freedoms.  This is especially true if those attempts to curb criminal activity are impotent and unenforceable.  Thus far, as in the so-called "assault weapons" ban, this has been the case.

I will finish with a brief description of how I feel gun laws should be handled.

Deny criminals and the mentally deranged only.  Period.

We have the means whereby convicted felons can be listed on the world wide web for all to see.  We could add those certified as deranged and dangerous.  It shouldn't be hard to do as one can already find who the sex offenders in one's area are.   But if a law-abiding citizen seeks to purchase a weapon, and his name does not show up in the database, there is no reason they should be denied ANY firearm, even automatic weapons.  What reason does anyone need for an fully automatic weapon?  None of your business if that person gives no reason to suspect he is incapable of possessing it responsibly.  If a person is responsible with one type weapon, why not another?   If he is a law-abiding person of good character, why should anyone be concerned?  If the idiots cannot handle possessing such a weapon without turning on their neighbors and spraying the area with bullets, they shouldn't seek to own one.

The above is very basic, not accounting for any variables whatsoever.  This does not mean I am unwilling to consider alterations.  It is merely the starting point of rational gun law.  It does not assume the worst about the law-abiding, while denying the criminal and sociopath.  The other side assumes the worst of everybody and by doing so, leaves everyone vulnerable to those who are the worst.


       

Gun Goofiness

Since the tragic shootings at Sandy Hook, there have been the predictable idiotic knee-jerk responses from those politicians and Hollywood notables who continue to show they don't know jack.  To not "know jack", of course, is an abbreviated version of the actual phrase I'd normally use, but I'm trying to eliminate profanity from my speech, both vocalized and printed.  Wish me luck on that.  But the term means that one's understanding of an issue is so devoid of fact and knowledge that one is rendered unworthy of the privilege of offering an opinion.  One who does not know jack is so ignorant of even the basics of the issue at hand that it provokes in those who do know jack great wonder that one would dare broach the subject.  I myself have been accused on occasion of not knowing jack by certain visitors to this blog.  But these visitors do not demonstrate a better knowledge of jack in their inability to show where my description of jack is in error.  To them it is just something they say when their own limited understanding of jack, if they possess any at all, does not prove compelling or even accurate.

But I digress.  This is about particular people who don't know jack and their insignificant proposals for dealing with gun violence in our culture.  Before I get to the main point I wanted to relate here, I have to mention something I heard today on the radio whilst working another unnecessarily long day (another digression).  Michael Medved did a quick spot on the subject of dishonest leftist stats (are there any other kind?) regarding gun deaths.  In it, and I grant that I've taken no time to research this particular bit, he states that in their relentless pursuit of a defenseless population, the left likes to speak of gun deaths which include suicides.  His point is that suicides from self-inflicted gunshot distorts the picture of gun violence, or more accurately, crimes committed with guns.  If such suicides are removed from the equation, and added to gun suicides all other forms of suicide, the total would overwhelm the amount of murders by gunshot.  Again, I did not research this stat myself.  I doubt that Medved made it up, and he is known for being pretty good with stats.  In any case, it does represent another case of the left doing anything they can to push their agenda.

Getting back to those with the jerking knees, I want to touch on the issue of large capacity magazines.  They come up in the discussion because the gun-grabbers ask, "Why would anyone need large capacity clips?"  It so happens that a good article explaining why was found at the incredibly biased, poorly written and therefor obviously unworthy of serious consideration by progressives AmericanThinker.com.  In fact, the article is co-incidentally entitled,  "Why Does Anybody Need A 30-round Magazine?" Check it out.

Before reading this article, I had already pondered the question and came up with the obvious answer, "Because there might be lots of bad guys."  And the article addresses that.  But it also speaks of how many rounds it might take to stop a single attacker as well.  The stories related in the article are compelling examples of how the anti-gun goofs spend little time truly thinking about an issue before they spew their nonsensical solutions.  One must wonder why that is as it happens with incredible regularity.  It lends credence to my opinion that those who vote for leftist candidates don't know jack, since they routinely vote for candidates that don't know jack, either.

The same, of course, can be said about the notion of "assault weapons".  I could assault you with a can of cling peaches in heavy syrup and that would make that can of peaches an assault weapon.  The term is purposely vague and requires stupid people to react primarily on an emotional level upon hearing it that they respond affirmatively to the leftist politician's impotent legislative proposal to ban them.  It's been tried and there was not discernible effect.  Now, Sen. Diane Feinstein, who doesn't know jack any better than any other leftist politician or celebrity, what's to bring the ban back.

Then, as if that wasn't enough, some will alter the term to "military style weapons".  And no doubt, we can't have people owning automatic weapons, now can we?  They're only for killing, by golly!  Such calls completely ignore the fact that the 2nd Amendment was intended to keep the federal government on notice.

Some are worried about the thought that people are walking around with guns or in possession of certain types of guns in their homes.  We should be far more worried about politicians who want to restrict our right to protect ourselves by arming ourselves.  I know I am definitely worried about people continuing to elect people who would exploit tragedies and play on the emotions those tragedies inflame.  It's not about guns.  It's never been about guns, or knives or bows and arrows or weapons of any kind.